logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.11 2015노3237
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had an intention or ability to repay money at the time of borrowing money by notifying the victim of the true purpose of the borrowed money.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence not later than the closing of argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case after completing the direct examination of evidence, including the process of examining the witness with respect to C and H, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006).

It is not clearly unreasonable to maintain the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the judgment.

(3) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, such as the above legal statement.

(A) Around August 2008, the Defendant recommended the victim to make an investment to the effect that “D working for the Defendant was ordered to work for Pyeongtaek-gun Base Construction, so that the Defendant would receive KRW 100 million loan and offer the profit to the said project on a face-to-face basis.” On September 30, 2008, the victim made a passbook of KRW 100 million at the Mapo Savings Bank.

(B) The Defendant did not work in D.

arrow